Since 2010 there have been 36 champions in KY.

12 have been public, non-independent schools

24 have been either private or independent school districts

2/3 of all champions.

This is reality. Saying publics could / should do whatever is pointless. The results speak for themselves. Privates and Independents are different than public schools and should compete against each other.

 

5 of those 12 public school championships were in class 3a from 2010-2014 when there was no dominant independent or private program in the class.

1 of those 12 was in class 4a in 2015. There are no dominant independents or privates in 4a in the current structure.

 

So basically, excluding classes without independent or private schools, publics have won 6 of 30 available championships.

 

It's also worth pointing out that the year Scott County won 6a (2013) neither Scott Co or Meade Co beat Trinity or St. X. (kudos to Scott for beating male).

Edited May 17, 201610 yr by Ashland

See my post below.

Since 2010 there have been 36 champions in KY.

12 have been public, non-independent schools

24 have been either private or independent school districts

2/3 of all champions.

This is reality. Saying publics could / should do whatever is pointless. The results speak for themselves. Privates and Independents are different than public schools and should compete against each other.

 

5 of those 12 public school championships were in class 3a from 2010-2014 when there was no dominant independent or private program in the class.

1 of those 12 was in class 4a in 2015. There are no dominant independents or privates in 4a in the current structure.

 

So basically, excluding classes without independent or private schools, publics have won 6 of 30 available championships.

 

It's also worth pointing out that the year Scott County won 6a (2013) neither Scott Co or Meade Co beat Trinity or St. X. (kudos to Scott for beating male).

 

So the only proof you have that anything is 'unfair' is some schools win more often?

 

Winning programs, whether public, private, or independent have those successful traits I mentioned before. Exiling teams purely based on success does not make anything more competitive. It's a purely selfish move that says 'rather than improve ourselves, let's get rid of the other guy for being too good'.

See my post below.

 

Also I find it convenient that your numbers above exclude two entire classes for not having 'dominant' privates/independents, as though neither class has any privates/independents at all. You don't get to exclude them just because they don't support your point.

 

To quote Benjamin Disraeli, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

If top two teams from each district made playoffs, that shaves 1 week off playoffs.

 

Could always do top 3 or 4 even with bye's for 1's and or 2's.

I'm pretty sure there are no privates or independents in 4A currently (could be an independent I'm not aware of)

 

In 3a during that time there were a few independents but no privates. Independents were Tilghman and Etown.

Etown during the time period was finally stopped from taking kids from the county schools (amazing that they weren't as good once they had to play with kids from their district).

Tilghman made multiple state semifinals in that time.

The point stands - privates and independents can do things publics can't - attract talent from outside their district boundaries. When they do this (not all do), they are difficult (mostly impossible) to beat for most (not all - Male / Central / Belfry) public schools.

I'm pretty sure there are no privates or independents in 4A currently (could be an independent I'm not aware of)

 

In 3a during that time there were a few independents but no privates. Independents were Tilghman and Etown.

Etown during the time period was finally stopped from stealing kids from the county schools (amazing that they weren't as good once they had to play with kids from their district).

Tilghman made multiple state semifinals in that time.

The point stands - privates and independents can do things publics can't - attract talent from outside their district boundaries. When they do this (not all do), they are difficult (mostly impossible) to beat for most (not all - Male / Central / Belfry) public schools.

 

We keep talkingof boundaries, why do people keep insisting on setting artificial boundaries on their areas? This is the crux of the issue that many of us are getting at. You can't tie a lead weight to one leg then get mad when someone outruns you, if you refuse to allow students to attend from outside a specific "boundary" then why should everyone else abide by the artificial constraints you place on yourself?

More Stats: Only two public school teams have beaten an independent or a private in the state championship game since 2010. Belfry and Collins. Once each. Just so you can't say I'm manipulating the stats, other teams beat privates / independents on the way there but not many (Male, Boyle, Graves, maybe one or two others)

You act like schools that do this are the minority. They aren't. The schools that are different should be the ones on their own.

 

I'm not saying privates or independents are doing anything wrong or illegal - just that they're inherently different.

You act like schools that do this are the minority. They aren't. The schools that are different should be the ones on their own.

 

I'm not saying privates or independents are doing anything wrong or illegal - just that they're inherently different.

 

I just struggle to understand why any district would restrict anyone from attending their schools. The very foundation of our nation is individual liberty and freedom of choice. By saying you have to live a certain place to go to a certain school it is downright un-American and anticompetitive. Many who rail against socialism in the P&R forums on here rail against opening borders here, double standard?

 

In fact I think I am darn near paraphrasing theguru on that one.

I would argue the backbone of our country is a strong network of public schools which service students living in their districts. As soon as people are allowed by an open district / private school to bail out on their public schools, you open up a downward spiral. People with the means (money) leave the local pubic school because they think it's bad. That makes the school worse because its best students, most active parents, and most likely to donate parents are all gone. Then more students leave because the school is perceived is bad. Solution: The Finnish model - true local public schools - no exceptions. When good students and their wealthy parents are forced to attend their local, public school, they pour money and resources into making that school great; everyone benefits from this.

Lots of what you call "local public schools" have open enrollment or accept out of district students. It isn't just the independent and private schools. In that regard, there is no difference in these schools.

I would argue the backbone of our country is a strong network of public schools which service students living in their districts. As soon as people are allowed by an open district / private school to bail out on their public schools' date=' you open up a downward spiral. People with the means (money) leave the local pubic school because they think it's bad. That makes the school worse because its best students, most active parents, and most likely to donate parents are all gone. Then more students leave because the school is perceived is bad. Solution: The Finnish model - true local public schools - no exceptions. When good students and their wealthy parents are forced to attend their local, public school, they pour money and resources into making that school great; everyone benefits from this.[/quote']

 

Yep, forcing a certain type of education down someone's throat. The American way.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but I do think it's the only solution if we want a strong public school system. Without a strong public school system the marginalized members of society stay marginalized generation after generation.

I know that some districts allow students to attend the school of their choice within a district and some districts have agreements with neighboring districts to allow students that are closer to one school or the other to attend that school, but are their public schools that let random students from other counties / districts come to their school? (legit asking)